Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday May 03, 2012 @10:36AM
from the I-miss-borders dept.

New accepted submitter super_rancid writes that issue 154 of the "UK-based Linux Format magazine was pulled from Barnes and Noble bookstores in the U.S. after featuring an article called 'Learn to Hack'. They used 'hack' in the populist security sense, rather than the traditional sense, and the feature — which they put online — was used to illustrate how poor your server's security is likely to be by breaking into it."

TFA states it was pulled "after a complaint" (note singular). I have trouble believing this is the only reason. They pulled all of them from all of their stores in America? I have trouble believing that a single complaint was the only reason. "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity," goes the quote, and I think it applies here. If M$ were the reason then they'd pull *all* Linux stuff. Likewise if they wanted to pull every example of "how to do bad things" off their shelves they'd have to take a LOT of books down.

I have trouble believing this is the only reason. They pulled all of them from all of their stores in America? I have trouble believing that a single complaint was the only reason. "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity," goes the quote, and I think it applies here.

Which shows the result of typing "linux hacking" into the barnesandnoble.com search box. They sell literally dozens of titles on the subject of hacking and Linux, Some of which use the "tinkering with" definition of hacking, and others of which use the "breaking into" definition. I've seen many of these books in the physical stores too. This sounds like some management weenie over reacting to a complaint and little else.

But it amounts to the same thing. This information is out there. You should be learning from it and protecting your information instead of trying to censor it as some sort of apology of crime. Anyone who is interested in "doing evil" and capable enough to do so, will surely find lots of ways they can gather that information online or even f

You can't argue with market realities. You can be smart. rebrand yourselves and build that brand in a respectable manner, or you can be a stupid 10 year old and throw a tantrum and still be associated with spammers and thieves.

as Shakespeare said A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, it the same thing. changing our name which when used by us is a term of respect, would changing our name change what we are? we are still the same, unfortunately the negative connotation that the outside world has for us would fallow to the new name mostly because we are an under valued hated but necessary part of the modern world. without us the world around us would slow to a halt because it is all built off of computers and networks only

No, and interestingly enough, this is a tangetial example of names being used incorrectly.

Godwin's Law is not _any_ mention of Hitler or the Nazis. It requires an unfavorable comparison to Nazi Germany or Hitler. Since nothing we've done is as bad as massacring 12+ million civilians, the comparison is ridiculous. Further, the rule is "any flame war shall eventually result in somone comparing someone else or their actions to Nazi Germany. That person loses."

Agreed. Ninety-nine percent is a bit high, but my dictionary and others say that it means to break into a computer illegally. The AP Stylebook, which governs most media coverage, says the term "hacker" "has evolved to mean one who uses computer skills to unlawfully penetrate proprietary computer systems."

Since the meaning of "hack" has evolved, or at the very least is evolving into this negative sense, automated computer systems flag it.

Maybe the magazine can contact a live person. Or find a different word

True, but since the goal of language is to facilitate communication, you would be wise to understand how most other people use the word. Face it, who is Joe Consumer going to listen to -- you, or CNN? If that is how the word is being portrayed in the media, you and I have the proverbial snowball's chance of changing the public's perception of that word.

Using Apple is kind of like being one of the kids whose parents didn't tell them Santa or the Tooth Fairy wasn't real until they were 16.

Using Linux is kind of like being one of the kids whose parents were alcoholics but did their best, in between drunken rants about the futility of life.

I would finish this by saying using Windows is like being one of the kids whose uncle used to have special sleep over parties, but I'd definitely get modded flamebait. And I use Windows on my personal machines. And my uncle didn't touch me.

Even if its used predominantly in America, it's a good bet predominately didn't originate here."To predominate" is a verb, "predominant" is an adjective. At some point in time, someone built an adjective off of the verb.

My favorite bit of vestigial English preserved in the colonies -- especially in the midwest -- is "gotten."And it's not a colloquialism; it's used in formal American English."What have you gotten?" (obtained) vs. "What have you got?" (possession)

(There's actually another Americanism in a sentence above. We typically say "off of" while the British say simply "off.")

Actually rather than "off of" or "off", Non American English speakers would say "from" when someone builds and adjective from a verb. At least those with a grasp on grammar. Like the correct version of "What have you gotten?" would be "What did you get?".

Correct or not, "what have you gotten" has a different connotation from "what did you get". (It's similar to the French imparfait vs. the passé-composé.) The former phrase denotes an action that may have occurred over time and may or may not be complete (cf: 'What have you gotten so far?'), while the latter implies that the action is finished. And while I despise the misuse of grammar as much as the next !z, I have to rule for the finesse of meaning with this phrase.

That's an interesting distinction, and I suppose the continuous version I would use is "what have you got?" rather than "what have you gotten?". While it's a request for inventory ignoring the process of acquisition, the verbicular acquisition is redundant due to an implication that that which has been acquired has been so from a starting point of nil. (See what I did there? I just adjectivised a verb! Ooooh, I just verberated a noun too!!!!)

They don't care if you hurt people, or even if you do it publicly.... But hacking into my server could cause me to LOSE MONEY, and B&N just won't stand for that.

Alternatively, the solution is simple: Let's all go visit Barnes and noble today and ask them for that particular issue. When they see how much MONEY they could be making by selling it, they may change their tune.

In an age where brick and mortar bookstores are no longer the most economic method to deliver printed matter, and where the needs and desires of consumers can be far more fully met online, needlessly exposing yourself to ridicule and consumer anger is not a good business strategy.

The sad thing is that the consumer anger is what caused it - this whole thing is due to a complaint.

I used to work for a UK bookshop who had a very forward looking view on things - if it wasn't illegal, they'd sell it if there was demand. We had complaints from the local university's Jewish Society about the fact that we sold Mein Kampf, which is not only legal but on several reading lists. The response was a more tactful version of "would you like us to make a big pile and burn them?"

I used to go to Barnes and Noble to buy 2600 Magazine because it was the only place in town that carried it. This was in the Midwestern US in the mid-1990s. I guess times have changed (OK I know times have changed).

When they pull that, I have -1 reasons to go to B&N. And since they bought my data from Borders and spammed me immediately, I've been a little peeved at them. Now I can explain to the wife how buying books at Amazon isn't hurting the local seller. The local seller is well capable of hurting itself.

I cut my teeth on articles about "hacking". I've used "hacking" tools going back to the one that got Dan Farmer fired, and before. My interest in security was sparked by downloading an exploit for the Solaris eject command. Download, compile, omg! Root prompt!

The catch? I did all those things on boxes I was paid to secure. I've never broken into anyone's systems but my own, and I have legitimate rights to do that. Information is information. It's not "good" or "bad". I have a bookshelf full of books, mostly bought in your stores, that could teach you how to "hack" or how to secure systems and networks. Guess what I've been paid to do for going on 20 years?

This inspired Steve Jobs to convince friend Woz to design and build Blue boxes, which eventually lead to the founding of Apple... now the biggest company in the world...

Apple started from hacker/phreaker roots, and inspired by an article published in a magazine. Just imagine the damage they've done to the future by pulling this Magazine.

Actually, Woz built the blue box on his own. Jobs convinced him he could sell it for like $125 or so (it cost $25 to build). But those were really just the prankish college days. To found Apple, Woz had to hock his beloved HP calculator in order to buy the parts necessary to build the Apple 1.

Jobs and Woz were friends very early on (started in childhood).

Anyhow, I think the damage caused these days would be far less than in the 70s. Firstly, it seems deadtree is dying in favor of electronic media, and I'm sure anyone who can't find the deadtree can find billions of similar articles online, if not going to the official website and reading it there. In the 70s, magazines were timely and important sources of information. These days, not so much since the Internet is far faster at it.

That's okay, I'll just head down the street to buy a copy from.... Oh, wait.... I know! I'll just go online and order it off.... Oh, shoot. Hmm, where did all the competition go? Oh well, I guess I'll just read whatever B&N or Amazon recommend for me..... Aaah, Excel For Dummies. Excellent.

That's okay, I'll just head down the street to buy a copy from.... Oh, wait.... I know! I'll just go online and order it off.... Oh, shoot. Hmm, where did all the competition go?

Where it inevitably goes in anything approaching the mythical free and open market - into a steadily decreasing pool of competitors until there is, effectively, no competition. Now shut up and consume from the holy capitalist system like a good citizen.

They used 'hack' in the populist security sense, rather than the traditional sense

Where does everybody get the sense that back in the day we didn't use the word for both of those things?

In 1988, a hack was used to describe a clever tweak of something to do something new, social engineering, and security intrusions. And, as far as I know, had been used in those ways for some time.

I've simply never gotten this whole "it's crack not hack" stuff, because it feels like we're changing after the fact how the word was actually used in practice. But when I was in highschool in the mid 80s, hacker was the only word we used -- 'cracker' came later.

I agree, the cracker vs. hacker debate is pointless. In my book, a hacker is somebody who figures out how to do stuff, not based on what was intended, but rather what is possible. It may be for good or ill, which is a subjective matter in the eye of the beholder.

But when I was in highschool in the mid 80s, hacker was the only word we used -- 'cracker' came later.

When I was in jr high and high school (mid 80's to early 90's)...and I BBSed a lot...a hacker was someone who gained unauthorized access to a computer. Cracking was used to describe people who circumvented copy protection.

If so, does that mean they are responsible for the content of the other 499 magazines + 20000 books in their store?

By the way, did any store ban The New Republic when they published a possibly pedophilic article [firstthings.com] 17 years ago? Or the National Review when they continued to publish what may be seen as racist articles into this decade? I don't know if they did, just wondering.

Is your son obsessed with "Lunix"?
BSD, Lunix, Debian and Mandrake are all versions of an illegal hacker operation system, invented by a Soviet computer hacker named Linyos Torovoltos, before the Russians lost the Cold War. It is based on a program called "xenix", which was written by Microsoft for the US government. These programs are used by hackers to break into other people's computer systems to steal credit card numbers. They may also be used to break into people's stereos to steal their music, using the "mp3" program. Torovoltos is a notorious hacker, responsible for writing many hacker programs, such as "telnet", which is used by hackers to connect to machines on the internet without using a telephone.
Your son may try to install "lunix" on your hard drive. If he is careful, you may not notice its presence, however, lunix is a capricious beast, and if handled incorrectly, your son may damage your computer, and even break it completely by deleting Windows, at which point you will have to have your computer repaired by a professional.
If you see the word "LILO" during your windows startup (just after you turn the machine on), your son has installed lunix. In order to get rid of it, you will have to send your computer back to the manufacturer, and have them fit a new hard drive. Lunix is extremely dangerous software, and cannot be removed without destroying part of your hard disk surface.

Which US Law that is violating our first Amendment rights that would require B & N to take it down...
Perhaps B & N is worried about something.

Though your grammar and sentence structure make it difficult be certain, it appears that you seem to think that the First Ammendment applies here. If so, you are very much mistaken. Stupid even. B&N can choose to sell, or not sell, anything they want

Well.You're wrong.Watch some old C64 Demos from pirate groups, or opening crawls from pirated games. "Cracker" and "cracking" is a term that has been around for a long, long time. Pre-1985. Example: "(c) This game cracked by Phreakers. L8mers go home."

From what I've read (not old enough to have lived through it), the innocent form of the work hacker goes back at least as far as the 60s. The MIT model railroad club dictionary is the most commonly cited documentation of it's usage, but it was more widespread than than). Through the 70's it was used in a neutral sense for someone who makes clever technical hacks, and didn't have any security or legal connotations. So phreakers were hackers, not because they broke into phone system, but because they made cle

Idea: maybe if one or two complaints causes this kind of reaction, imagine if their phones were to experience the/. phenomenon and just 0.05% of us complained, say about the sadism and child abuse in "The Hunger Games", or the mediocrity of the last Moby album?

Just because one or two people may use hammer to hurt others, doesn't mean all shops should be banned from selling them.

I just used that same thing at the dinner table last night defending computers in general. You can use a hammer to build a house or to bash in someone's head. It's just a tool. If they couldn't find a hammer, there's lots of other tools they could find that would suffice. Al Capone liked baseball bats, according to the movie.

P. S. I like baseball bats too. That doesn't mean I want to bash anyone's head in.